Media lies about Prop 8 facts, says org. that wouldn't surprise us if they called it Prop 9

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/16/2011

by Jeremy Hooper

The anti-gay side, via the unsuccessful witch hunt against Judge Vaughn Walker, was trying to overturn the Reagan/Bush appointees thoroughly reasoned Aug. 4, 2010 ruling. That was the goal: To vacate the decision and force a whole new trial -- one where the Prop 8 proponents would surely try to learn from their unbelievably poor showing and craft some sort of pathway to a win.

The Family Research Council even admits that this was the goal:

Within days, ProtectMarriage.com filed a motion to abandon Walker's ruling and retry the case.

"Abandon Walker's ruling and retry the case"? That sounds to us like they didn't want the Prop 8 ruling upheld. Didn't want the ruling to stick. Didn't want anyone siding with Walker's views.

But now check this out. To lead off the very same piece where he or she talks about the goal to vacate, the FRC writer begins by attacking the media for simply stating the obvious:

More than 1,500 stories have been written about yesterday's ruling on Judge Vaughn Walker--and all but a handful seem to shrug off the facts. The headlines jump across the page in papers from Detroit to San Francisco: "Prop 8 Ruling Upheld," they say, or, "Ruling on Gay Marriage Sticks." The media's agenda here is obvious. Reporters want to leave the impression that another court is siding with Walker's radical views on marriage. But in this case, marriage wasn't on trial. Judge Vaughn Walker was. Before retiring, the judge put an exclamation point on years of activism by overturning California's marriage amendment. After the fiercest rebuke of marriage ever issued by an American court, the vitriol suddenly made sense. Days after he stepped down, Walker admitted that he'd been in a homosexual relationship for the past 10 years.
California Marriage: Worse for Ware [FRC]

Huh!? The pesky, "liberal" media is agenda-ing folks into believing that the ruling was upheld (i.e. exactly what happened, against proponents' will)? And then, to add insult to the whole thing, the FRC writer comes right out and admits that their side was targeting Judge Walker personally (something others on that side have vigorously denied, as they try to make this all about the process rather than the person)?

But fine, whatever. The FRC can go right ahead and accuse the media of shrugging off facts, if the anti-gay organization thinks that productive. Although it seems to us that if they keep overplaying these hands in hope that something --anything -- will stick, it might be FRC who ends up with raised shoulders and a confused face, wondering why history didn't bend to their aggressive myths.

space